— i> IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 18113 OF 2016 Between: 1. E. Thirupalu, S/o Late Krishnama Raju, Aged, about 32 years, Ex- Inmate of S.V.Balamandir, R/o H.No.5-53, New D.No.5-95, Padmavathipuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. B.Muni Reddy, S/o Late B.Chenga Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Ex- Inmate of S.V.Balamandir, R/o Perumallapalli village & Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati Chittoor District. 2. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, direction, or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order dt.11.04.2016 against the order passed in W.P. No.21609 of 2003 illegal and arbitrary. as r >1 r't ^v- ,/■ Tii^NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 22252 OF 2016) I Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order ROC No. E3/23/203 of 2003, dated 11-04- 2016, pending disposal of the main writ petition. LA. NO: 2 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 30202 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to file additional material papers in WP.No. 18113 of 2016 in the interest of justice. LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 50516 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of WP No. 18113 of 2016 by fixing an early date. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the W.P.No. 18113 of 2016 by fixing an early date. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners herein to file additional material WP.No.18113 of 2016. papers in Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K GOPAL ^ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS / Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following order: APHC010662622016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 18113/2016 Between: E. Thirupalu & Ano. and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND PrI Secy Endowments Dept Ano and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.KGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. A SUMANTH (SC FOR TTD) 3. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2"^^ respondent. nd 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 2 respondent dated 11.04.2016 in rejecting the representations of the petitioners dated 28.06.2003 and 31.07,2003 on the ground that there are no merits even after examination of the same. 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners '> the students of S.V.Balamandir of the 2""^ respondent institution. They discharged from Balamandir by issuing discharge certificates in the year 1986. The petitioners sought employment as attenders purely on the ground that they are ex-inmates of the institution of the 2"^^ respondent devasthanam. In the first round of litigation the matter went up to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4507-4514 of 1996 and other connected cases. The said similar case was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 253 wherein it was observed at para 9 & 10 of the said judgment as under: were were as “9. The aforesaid proceedings merely state that interviews were held for appointment under the Devasthanams even as far back as in 1981. It further states that the present inmates will be considered for appointment after their completion of studies and they will be given employment as a matter of routine without reference to the Employment Exchange. The very fact that interviews were held even in 1991 shows that appointment of the inmates/ex-inmates was not automatic. On the facts of the present case, the distinction between inmates and ex-inmates loses all relevance because 193 inmates/ex inmates were considered for appointment and 53 of them selected. In comparison to the candidates who were were selected, the respondents were obviously not found to be equally meritorious. Counsel for the respondent has to been able to show that at any point of time, there was a promise or an obligation on the part of Devasthanams to give employment to the inmates, even if it is presumed that the ex inmates like the respondents have to be treated on a par with the inmates. Under these circumstances, the High Court clearly erred in issuing the direction which had the effect of granting appointment to the respondents even though they considered but were not found to be fit for selection. The High Court ought to have held that there could be no automatic employment of inmates and ex-inmates by the appellant and that they had to go through a process of were 3 selection. There was a selection in the year 1991 when the respondents were considered but were found not to be fit for selection and no relief could have been granted to the respondents. 10. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, the effect of which is that the writ petitions filed by the respondents shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” nd 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 respondent submits that the cases of the petitioners were considered in the light of the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. By way of second round of litigation, the petitioners again filed W.P.No.21609 of 2003 before the erstwhile High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad and the same was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2016. Subsequently, when the impugned proceedings dated 11.04.2016 was issued by the 2"^^ respondent, the same was assailed in this writ petition. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, and in the light of the above said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the same is applicable to the facts and circumsiances of this case, it is found that the impugned proceedings of the 2'’'^ respondent is justified and the case of the petitioners appears to have been considered by the 2"*^ respondent strictly in the light of the above said decision of the Supreme Court, even by incorporating the same in the said proceedings dated 11.04.2016. If the petitioners were found to be not suitable in the selection process for the said 5. 4 vacancies at that point of time, there cannot be any issuance of “Mandamus to consider the case of the petitioners contrary to the law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- J. SAROJA ASSISTANT REGI^AR ON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. One CC to Sri K Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri A K Jayaprakash Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 X 10 MAR 2025 ORDER Co ^ . Current Secuon WP.No.18113of2016 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS